Meet The Climate Denial Machine Blog
Despite the overwhelming consensus among climate experts that human activity is contributing to rising global temperatures, 66 percent of Americans incorrectly believe there is “a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening.” The conservative media has fueled this confusion by distorting scientific research, hyping faux-scandals, and giving voice to groups funded by industries that have a financial interest in blocking action on climate change. Meanwhile, mainstream media outlets have shied away from the “controversy” over climate change and have failed to press U.S. policymakers on how they will address this global threat. When climate change is discussed, mainstream outlets sometimes strive for a false balance that elevates marginal voices and enables them to sow doubt about the science even in the face of mounting evidence.
Meet The Climate Denial Machine | Blog | Media Matters for America
The consensus agrees that humans are driving the increase in temperatures, except for the minor detail that temperatures aren’t increasing.
Honest Debate??
“AGW Science” supporters are like Japanese “Scientific” Whalers.
Full of you know what.
” … mainstream outlets sometimes strive for a false balance …. ”
The sheer repetition of the “false balance” phrase is one of the main motivators that got me into figuring out where the smear of skeptic climate scientists originated nearly 3 years ago, and why its claim was demonstratively unsupportable: “The Lack of Climate Skeptics on PBS’s ‘NewsHour'” http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/the_lack_of_climate_skeptics_o.html
AGW will implode in the most epic way possible when the larger public becomes fully aware of how many AGW claims do not work when anyone places them under hard scrutiny. Not only does the AGW science fall apart, so to assertions about consensus, media balance, corrupt skeptics and other such political talking points. It is positively breathtaking that the whole thing didn’t collapse years earlier.
Boykoff himself doesn’t believe in the “false balance”
Actually, it’s hard to figure what Max Boykoff or his brother Jules truly believe in, but in this 2004 article at the ironically labeled “FAIR” site ( http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1978 ) they say “Balanced coverage does not, however, always mean accurate coverage. In terms of the global warming story, “balance” may allow skeptics—many of them funded by carbon-based industry interests—to be frequently consulted and quoted in news reports on climate change. Ross Gelbspan, drawing from his 31-year career as a reporter and editor, charges in his books The Heat Is On and Boiling Point that a failed application of the ethical standard of balanced reporting on issues of fact has contributed to inadequate U.S. press coverage of global warming…”
Whatever studies the Boykoffs plunged into, they were operating under the false premise that industry funding corrupted skeptics. From ’04 onward, these guys were cited like gods for the proof that the media gave too much equal treatment to skeptics, e.g. as recently as this past May by the Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin: “Boykoff suggests that many mainstream reporters quote climate contrarians out of a misguided quest for journalistic balance” 5th paragraph here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/book-review-michael-manns-the-hockey-stick-and-the-climate-wars/2012/05/25/gJQAIYzQqU_story_2.html
BTW, I believe the “Boykoff” reference Maurizio makes here comes from the comment I had at TallBloke’s blog about BBC28Gate ( http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/joe-smith-dangerous-news-twenty-eight-gate-begins/#comment-34974 ). For those unaware of it, scroll up to the very top of that blog to see how Maurizio earned his recent fame in “TwentyEightGate”.
Though I just shared the following with Maurizio via regular email, it’s too ironic not to share more widely: In 2011, Max Boykoff was dismayed enough about ‘false balance’ that he griped at his Facebook page, “EGADS! where’s the story/news here?” while linking to a Joe Romm blog titled “False Balance Exposed: BBC Gives Too Much Weight to Fringe Views on Climate Change, Independent Review Finds.”
Link here http://www.facebook.com/max.boykoff/posts/246526225377086 and screencapture of that here http://i50.tinypic.com/eafkuv.jpg for those of you not signed up for FB.
The whole point to the original BBC 2006 seminar was their conclusion saying “the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus”.
What I’m waiting for is some statistician to attempt a replication of the Boykoff study which proved skeptics were given too much “equal time”. I truly doubt it would yield the conclusion that the Boykoffs came up with, no less similar to the way studies have been orchestrated to show the lack of science papers opposing AGW.
It won’t collapse. The public will grow gradually more and more sceptical and politicians will then loose interest as there will be no votes in it for them. The latest spin, which is ‘extreme weather’ is not likely to convince anyone now except the true believers.
This is why I’m so stinking happy that Michael Mann decided to sue Mark Steyn. His diva-esque attitude will FORCE the world to take a hard look at his work. I think he’s pushed the snakeoil so often that he’s actually believes it himself. Kinda like that Nobel prize…
I’m all for discovery and I think Mark Steyn is the right guy for that job.
I’m previously an engineer. Raw (non-massaged) data lets the sun shine in.
Do not understand the power of Pravda. They got Obama elected.